"I remain firmly supportive of the right of people peacefully to protest. But given the strong advice that we have received that the camp is making the cathedral and its occupants unsafe then this right has to be balanced against other rights and responsibilities too. The Christian gospel is profoundly committed to the needs of the poor and the dispossessed. Financial justice is a gospel imperative. Those who are claiming the decision to close the cathedral has been made for commercial reasons are talking complete nonsense."

It is an interesting rebuke (not, of course, directed towards His Grace, for he never alleged that the Cathedral was closing for commercial reasons: quite the contrary) for, with Lucan undertones, it purports to preach justice for the poor while rebuking his critics for 'talking complete nonsense'.

This intemperate language manages to be patronising, arrogant, high-handed, self-righteous, rude and condescending all at the same time. Presumably, appearing, as it does, on the Cathedral's website, the statement is issued on behalf of the Dean and Chapter. It is evident that the Rev'd Giles Fraser is something of a loose canon.

His Grace could go on (and on). So, when it comes to 'talking complete nonsense', perhaps the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral might express a little Christian humility, patience, kindness and love. Perhaps he might understand that there are Christians outside of his narrow cloisters who hold beliefs just as sincerely as he holds his. He may be privileged to preach his liberal socialist gospel from the pulpit of St Paul's. But others of us are restricted to our blogs.

Ah, but then Giles Fraser thinks we bloggers write 'the most disgusting bile, wrapped in the clothing of anonymity'. He alleges that 'nasty and insulting comment drives away all the interesting stuff' and that we are 'poisoning the wells of open debate, not enhancing it'. The medium, he avers, is 'abandoned to people with thick skins and short tempers. And that is hardly the open forum that many bloggers claim they are protecting'.

"For too long, Christians have put up with a theory of salvation that has at its core the idea that God requires the sacrifice of his own son so that human sin can be cancelled. "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin," we will all sing.

"The fact this is a disgusting idea, and morally degenerate, is obvious to all but those indoctrinated into a very narrow reading of the cross."

It seems to me the bible is clear on this issue. So either scripture itself is wrong and not the inspired word of God, or the Canon is claiming God the Father is morally degenerate.

Blogs are about the only place nowadays where the writ of the liberal hegemony does not run, and as Mark in Mayenne says, are a last refuge of common sense.

But the Church is now stuffed (or should it be staffed) with these worldly unworldly types who have drained it of its spirtitual message, destroyed its mystery and annexed it as an arm of the social services.

And then they ask why nobody goes to Church!

Canon Fraser and his modish ilk are a far greater threat to the C of E than a host of secularists,atheists, Muslims and whatever.

But, on the matter of 'talking complete nonsense', this is the man who massacres Scripture; despises the 'ego' of heterosexual weddings while lauding gay marriage; berates conservative Anglicans as 'homophobes' and 'extremists'; equates 'Islamophobia' with racism; does not believe in the immortality of the soul; rejects the salvific notion that Jesus was sacrificed for our sin...

I suspect the establishment have done some very serious work on this man, before fast tracking him into one of the top jobs. He was clearly educated at an established university, most likely Oxford or Cambridge. He has therefore already gone through a process of slow but profound indoctrination, akin to mind control. Thus he holds the above view-points with the usual sense of self-righteous fortitude.

As I have said many times before a fish like a nation state, or any other institution rots from its head down. To permanently change the bottom, all one has to do is utterly subvert the top. The intended disease will then swiftly travel down the pyramidical chain of command and control.

Our establishment has a long term Globalist agenda to play out to its ultimate conclusion. This agenda has no particular time scale or dead-line to reach. It matters not much whether it takes another 10, or 100 years to reach their goal of complete temporal and spiritual hegemony, for reach it they will over any needful amount of time and dead bodies.

Socialism, or World Communism through a World Central Bank is the only game in town, and has been for many hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Leftist organizations, and therefore the 'thinking' thereof, are constructs of The System, used to promote radicalism.

Rightist organizations, and therefore the 'thinking' thereof, are constructs of the exact same system, used to control the reaction to the above form of highly contrived radicalism.

What ultimately emerges from the above, is whatever the people who utterly control the system want to emerge from it.

For example divisions of all kind, endemic wars and civil-conflicts, de-education, feminism, 'anti'racism, 'anti' homophobia, open borders, national bankruptcy, the destruction of 'normal' family life, and all independent nation states, the formulation of world government, and a one world religion working under a World Central Bank, better known as World Marxist Communism etc etc etc.

This agenda clearly comes from the very TOP, and is no way coming from anywhere near the bottom. The vast majority who reside permanently at or very near the bottom are instinctively conservative in nature, and therefore resistant to change of almost all kinds. This creates a natural inertia which is not in the interests of those who vastly profit from a ever more increasingly changing world.

The great mass of ordinary people just want to live a full, prosperous, and harmonious existence. Which is exactly what they have always done until the people at the top start playing their very nasty games yet again.

He has not said God is morally degenerate. He has said that one of a number of theories of the atonement is morally degenerate, in his opinion. And it's an opinion shared by many, he's entitled to hold it, and it doesn't make him a heretic. There is no one theory of the atonement that all Christians must sign up to, and anyone which has spent half an hour studying theology and the atonement could tell you that.

Who alloyed this idiot to be promoted to this position. He should be fired from a common. He is a Judas amongst the Pharisees.In the commercial world, you would be assesed in your performance against the job specification. Cannon Giles Fraser should be fired.

The “occupy” protestors, in London and elsewhere turn out to be entirely correct, but for completely the wrong reasons.

An impartial scientific study, based on methods used for studying ecological and biological systems has turned up some very disturbing results.See here:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1107/1107.5728v2.pdfand here, for a summary:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

What is really worrying is that all these small number of companies all appear to own each other.

Well, if he says it's "complete nonsense" that he shut up shop for commercial reasons, he will be OK with the loss of £10,000,000 by Christmas! His health and safety concerns are really quite ridiculous. If he took as much interest in the catholic faith of the creeds, we'd all be a lot better off!

I'm pleased you are reading C S Lewis. He introduces the subject of Christ's death in an easy to read, conversational style.

"Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had tobelieve was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory Godwanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to bepunished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make."

"The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work."

"My own church — the Church of England — does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further ... I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality."

"We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed."

Lewis then goes on and outlines the 'orthodox' view:

"But supposing God became a man —suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person —then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all."

Now the Canon appears to dismiss the notion that God became man and surrendered Himself. The Father and Son are one. It was a self sacrifice. He distorts this by counter posing an angry wrathful God with His Son, an innocent victim. In fact, they are one.

Whatever 'theory' one holds they must rest on scripture and if the Canon believes more orthodox theories ('ransom', 'Christ Victorious', or 'satisfaction') are to be abandoned what alternative is he putting forward and what biblical basis is there for this?

I disagree profoundly with Giles Fraser about many things, but your comment, my friend, that his latest statement is "patronising, arrogant, high-handed, self-righteous, rude and condescending" is one I completely disagree with, and it is a great pity you have chosen to describe his comments in such untrue terms.

It's not the Good News. The Pope in his books on Jesus of Nazereth has made some interesting comments that I can't fully comprehend.

What is clear though is that any theology of Christ's death and resurrection cannot overlook the propiatory and reconciliation aspects.

Hard as that might be to accept, Christ was destined to die for sinners to free us all from the burden and punishment of sin. A self sacrifice by Jesus, the Priest, and by Him as God made man. An act of love - but also an atoning death.

Mr Fraser appears to confirm my belief that there are too many functionaries within the Church of England, including Mr Williams, who are not Christians; rather they are socialist implants. Until they are purged from the Church, nothing will change.

Danj0It comes home to me at Carol services sometimes : the sheer brutality and absurdity of some lyrics. How can anyone sing "lo he abhors not the virgin's womb" and NOT realise that they are engaged in something profoundly odd?

.. but YG, your headline is misleading. It should read "Canon Giles Fraser accuses some of his critics, specifically those who assert that "the decision to close the cathedral has been made for commercial reasons" are talking complete nonsense

Indeedy. I was brought as CofE and these thing just seeped into my consciousness over time so they seemed fairly normal for a while. Without meaning to be facetious, I can only liken it to (say) scenes from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. The rituals and language are quite jarring when you're completely on the outside looking in, I think. I'm not merely being offensive here, I think the religious ought to know how it can come across and why some of us want no hold over us from it.

I am not an apologist for Inclusive Church, but its new Co-ordinator Bob Callaghan is known to me and my present Incumbant was his curate. She speaks very highly of him, and my knowledge of him ( and her!) is of a fellow Christian with whom I have cheerfully worshipped. What I hear of Canon Fraser is not encouraging, but I doubt all who support Inclusive Church ideals are all unorthodox across the board.

Danj0 is quite right. Some things in Christian doctrine appear bizarre. For example, in the Gospel of John Jesus says “My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

After hearing it, many of his followers said, 'This is intolerable language. How could anyone accept it?'… 63 'It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh has nothing to offer. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. … 66 After this, many of his disciples went away and accompanied him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the Twelve, 'What about you, do you want to go away too?' 68 Simon Peter answered, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the message of eternal life.

As St. Paul says “The foolishness of God is greater than human wisdom. It’s not the sort of thing you would make up to try and achieve credibility so why do we believe it? Look at the whole picture - the miracles recorded 2000 years ago and the miracles today. The greatest consistent humanitarian effort the world has ever seen, subsidised not by taxes as the U.N does but by self-sacrificing love. No doubt people will mention the violence but as I say, look at the whole picture and compare it with any other human organization and even with your own individual efforts. I may not understand everything but I’ll place my allegiance with the doctrines of Jesus rather than Giles Frazer.

The thing which causes people like Giles Frazer to get confused about is that they want to appear tolerant and be Christian at the same time but Christianity is not tolerant – it defines what is right and what is wrong and it refuses to change its doctrines with the spirit of the times. Where the Church gets it right is that it forgives when a person repents.

Nowadays the Church is under threat from within and Christians have to realize that we can no longer compromise – it’s time to proclaim orthodoxy loud and clear and if necessary be unpopular.

DanJO: You make your point about 'need to be outside religion ...bizarre etc' Christ was crucified for being 'outside religion'- He challenges people, who either have to change or reject him. What know they of God, who know not God ?

The Pope is entitled to expound private theological opinion without this in anyway being binding on Roman Catholics. His writing is complex at times and difficult to fathom. Trying to use words to capture the mysteries of God is always going to be challenging.

The Catholic doctrine is presented in the Cathecism of the Church.It is clear and does not go into theological detail about the 'how it works' of Christ's redemptive sacrifice (paragraphs 599 to 618).

Hope this clarifies things lest you think I am an unthinking and uncritical follower of my faith.

The major problem with Christianity (or at least what goes under the name of Christianity today) is that instead of Christianity changing the World the reverse has happened (in many cases) and the World has changed Christianity.The World has had a steady corrupting influence on Christianity and today`s version would be unrecognisable to any of the early Christians.Christianity as practised by Jesus was not of this World it was entirely of another World, to try and make Christianity fit into this World system is entirely impossible.The two are incompatible.

And how can carnal man apprehend the things of God?

'The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.'(!Corinthians 2:14)

It is a complex area. Giles Fraser pitched the question wrong to exaggerate the wrathful aspect and ommitted the self giving aspect. The two go together. An act of love and mercy as well as a sacrifice to satisfy justice - by God as man.

FRaser is ntitled to his views, but he shouldnt hold such views as a leader in the C of E. The statement of our faith is to be found in the 39 Articles. Insofar has his views are incompatible with those Articles, he is not an Anglican. Let him and those like him form their own church with their own Articles of faith instead of creating confusion of belief in the C of E.

No... not if one is given a revelation. Which is precisely what transformed me from being an Atheist to a Christian.

There are two things about Christ a person cannot understand by himself:Who Jesus really is - "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." ... "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven." (Matthew 16:15-17)

Your Grace,Thank you for the link to Dave Walker's comments on, and quotation of, the Canon.

As you say, Fraser isn't referring to you. Indeed, he distinguishes between bloggers and blogsite owners:"[T]those who post comments on websites — also known as bloggers —are able to get away with the most disgusting bile, wrapped in the clothing of anonymity." He refers to The Guardian's site where, he says: "Sadly, nasty and insulting comment drives away all the interesting stuff. Who wants to get involved in a serious discussion only to end up trading abuse?"

Though I haven't checked the context in The Church Times, doesn't this remark present a dead ringer for what insurgents have been doing to Your Grace's blog?

It certainly reflects my own reactions yesterday (@22:54 and 03:13); though now, as then, I remain grateful that Your Grace and some long-term Communicants remain.

One can scroll past the rest.

PS: Disappearing Post Syndrome has struck... sorry if this should re-appear elsewhere.

You believe you were given a transforming revelation. It profoundly changed you.

Not everyone is given this and not everyone is immediately moved to repent and change. You are setting the entry bar way too high! People come to a fuller understanding of God as He determines and with their consent, through grace, as He draws them ever closer.

"For too long, Christians have put up with a theory of salvation that has at its core the idea that God requires the sacrifice of his own son so that human sin can be cancelled. "There was no other good enough to pay the price of sin," we will all sing.

"The fact this is a disgusting idea, and morally degenerate, is obvious to all but those indoctrinated into a very narrow reading of the cross."

I'm not an Anglican, but is the above statement compatible with:

Article II

"Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man. The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men."

The necessity of Christ's propitiatory sacrifice seems to be implied in the following:

Article IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin.

"Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk;) but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, p¢vnæa sapk¢s, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.

And:

Article XV. Of Christ alone without Sin.

"Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things, sin only except, from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh, and in his spirit. He came to be the Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin (as Saint John saith) was not in him. But all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

I don't think it's clear at all; however it does confirm what I always seem to come up against: a complete confusion and lack of clarity about Christian beliefs when critically examined. It's very hard to ever pin anything down.

I was baptised as an infant.I also went through the confirmation process and was confirmed by a Bishop.

This was done mostly to please my parents.However I most certainly and categorically was NOT born again as I recognise this today.So fell away from religion as I found church services boring and meaningless.I became an atheist.

later in life I stared a spiritual search rejecting all religions as empty as nothing 'rang true' to me.To cut a long story short I started asking a Christian Pastor questions about Jesus and what made Him different from any other religious figure.I started a search for truth ruthlessly throwing out anything which 'smacked 'of religion. It was during this process that I had a revelation( I had had many more) about the authenticity of Jesus which totally 'blew me away' to use a common phrase.This was not a purely intellectual event but a spirit to spirit communication.This happened twelve years ago and it will probably take me the rest of my life to understand totally what happened.But I know that I am not the same person that I was and never will be again.I was a atheist and I totally understand the position of Atheists but I know the truth now and wish others to do the same.Organised religion was no help at all to me in fact the reverse it drove me away from seeking truth and gave me an empty boring experience instead.

The born again experience is when God breathes Life into a dead spirit and this religion cannot do!.

Tingey - very interesting that it appears to confirm what many conspiracy theorists have been saying for many years. But apparently there's no conspiracy! As David Icke might say "don't worry, just a coincidence"

That's very interesting; in fact it sounds much like my experience, but without the "revelation" bit. I was raised a Catholic and went through the baptism/ confirmation/ altar boy business but rejected all that and became an atheist. For some years now I have been drawn to Christianity but find I just can't accept it, although I now think there is some kind of God.

St Paul's appears to be abdicating two gospel responsibilities. 1. To provide an alternative venue for its regular congregations to meet, rather than running services behind closed doors, attended mostly by those paid to be there. The actual gathering of the church visible must surely take priority over its geographical location (cf Art XIX). 2. To proclaim the gospel of Christ crucified in the open air to those gathering in such numbers in its curtilage. Time to revive St Paul's Cross - the cathedral's open air pulpit for centuries.

Mr Sarkozy was reported to have told the British Prime Minister that he should "shut up" during a meeting of the European Union's 27 leaders.

"We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do," he was quoted as saying by EU officials, losing patience at what he perceived to be Mr Cameron's hectoring from the single currency's sidelines. "You say you hate the euro and now you want to interfere in our meetings."

Whitespacebug says “some years now I have been drawn to Christianity but find I just can't accept it, although I now think there is some kind of God.”

Your experience is not that unusual and in fact many of the best Christians had the same problem. Some parts of Christian teaching are not easy to accept e.g. Original Sin, the redemption of mankind by the suffering of Christ etc. I don’t think you should worry about your doubt but I think you should respond to the way you are drawn to Christianity. That is Almighty God speaking to you personally. You can reject it but I would suggest keeping an open mind and listening. However, the acceptance of Christianity is not something you can do by your own efforts – it is a two way process and Almighty God is ready to do his part. I would suggest you put it to the test. Speak to him and say “OK, I will listen and keep an open mind and I expect you to give me some guidance.” He will not fail but he will speak in his own way and not according to your criteria so you have to be prepared to bend a little.

If you think there might be A God, consider what this might entail. Agnosticism is a beginning, not a conclusion.

Do you think this entity 'God' might want to communicate His attributes to us. If so, has He done so? Why would He create people? This means looking at existing belief systems to consider if any resonate with you.

For me, the crunch issue was the existance of 'evil', pain and suffering in the world and the Judeo-Christian understanding of this. It might be something else for you.

Even len has acknowledged he was looking for answers before his encounter. Religion is not exclusively an internal, subjective experience. It is also demands the use of our minds. That's why I liked reading Lewis' 'Mere Christianity'.

Truly, although they are demanding books, Ratzinger's series on 'Jesus of Nazereth' are excellent. And just to reassure you, they are not particularly 'Catholic' in content.

I can only speak from my own experience which was to be totally honest and open with God.No religious prayers, but just an honest open direct conversation.Seems a bit weird at first but eventually answers started flooding in almost faster than I could handle them.As I said my approach to God was very direct through frustration and a desire to know the truth.

'If you seek the Lord your God, youwill find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul.'

Religion is so boring and stupid. No wonder it's all just museums for tourists now. These people did the right thing; even their pretensions to "inclusivity" and "Progressive revelation" are nothing without that cash flow of 20K Pounds/week. Your church is a form of outdoor relief for the over-educated and people (according to a former Press agent for your Archbishop)"who couldn't survive 20 minutes in a non-profit organization, let alone a for-profit one".

Nixon. Our TV is currently running a show (The Apprentice) full of people who "could survive in a for profit organization " and they are pretty ghastly people, I have to say - something has gone seriously wrong if these people are anything to go by. They would sell their Granny if they could turn a profit.

You can’t do better than talking to him directly just as Len indicated. Complain if you like about the injustices of the world. Keep an open mind and listen to what happens. Maybe he’ll answer very directly or maybe he’ll do so very quietly in which case you have to listen hard. Everyone’s different so there is no formula. Best wishes.

Urban, your religion is a joke. It makes the Church of England look solid-which is a virtual miracle. Middle-class, middle-aged and middle-brow; "New Statesman" at prayer; about as "diverse" as skim milk. Giles Fraser is one of hundreds of living arguments for disestablishment.

I see he's resigned. Why is it that he can resign on a matter of principle when it comes to anti-capitalist protest, but is content to hold positions of authority in an organisation that upholds the sacrificial content of the Articles of Faith that he repudiates as abhorrent?

Sorry not to have had the time to read through reams of comment from an allegedly orthodox perspective, I've been too busy ministering to real people who have no time for nit picking debates or who take advantage of a someone else's discomfiture to stick in few theological knives.

Yes, GF is a liberal Christian - note the last word - but I find he often serves the cause of the Gospel better then so called Reformed brethren because a) he is honest b) appears to have done some serious study and c) has a sense of humour

Liberal Christian? Does this mean that God does not have any laws and that we should make them up as we go along? Do you draw the line anywhere and if so how would you justify this against those who want even more liberalism. After all in that scenarion you have no higher authority to go by. Christianity teaches both mercy and judgement and it advises us to seek mercy now because a time will come when we will be judged on what we have taught as well as on what we have done.

Five little ducks went to playWibble wobble, wibble wobble to and froBut the one little duckWith the feather on his backHe led the others with a quack, quack, quack.Quack, quack, quackQuack, quack, quackHe led the others with a quack, quack, quack.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)